This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Subreg-byte patches (was: Branching for GCC 3.0)
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: Subreg-byte patches (was: Branching for GCC 3.0)
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: 08 Jan 2001 20:58:14 -0800
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200101090101.RAA16566@racerx.synopsys.com>
Joe Buck <email@example.com> writes:
> > >>> Well, actually I would think the subreg-byte-branch got more real world
> > >>> testing on alpha/x86/sparc than the current mainline, cause it's part of
> > >>> the RedHat7 gcc-2.96 AFAIK.
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > No, the patch is used on all platforms (ie. alpha, x86, sparc, sparc64 at
> > > least, plus I think some people are using the same source on powerpc) all
> > > the time.
> Gerald writes:
> > In my opinion that means we should really consider integrating it into our
> > mainline ASAP, and in fact an additional release criterion for GCC 3.0.
> > Else, GNU/Linux distributions for SPARC (which means UltraSPARC these
> > days) have *no* *choice* but rolling a GCC release of their own, similiar
> > to what Red Hat did with GCC 2.96, and we certainly don't really want
> > that, do we?
> I want to be careful about giving Mark a big additional job to do, but I
> see your point. In an ideal world this thing would have been merged some
> time ago, but lacking time machines we have to decide now.
> What is the level of effort required to get the subreg patch in? How
> badly have things diverged since 2.96-RH was forked off?
I would pose another question.
If the patch didn't go in, how soon could we integrate it and make
another release? Do you think this would be significantly more time
than it would take to integrate and it starting now?
- Geoffrey Keating <firstname.lastname@example.org>